On 26/08/2010 10:40, "Sheng Yang" <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 August 2010 17:22:29 Keir Fraser wrote:
>> By the way, could an IRQ's 'domain' be given a better name in Xen? We
>> already have a meaning for domain, and it makes the code very confusing!
>> Can we call it cpu_affinity or cpu_binding, or something a bit more
>> meaningful and distinguishable?
>
> Or use cpu_mask directly? Would send an separate patch if you like, for
> whatever
> name. :)
Yes, cpu_mask would be fine. I applied your other two patches now. So send a
patch against http://xenbits.xen.org/staging/xen-unstable.hg
Thanks,
Keir
> --
> regards
> Yang, Sheng
>
>>
>> -- Keir
>>
>> On 26/08/2010 10:14, "Sheng Yang" <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The "mask" covered all online cpus in the "domain". It should be used as
>>> destination later, instead of using "domain" directly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> --
>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>>> @@ -86,14 +86,14 @@
>>>
>>> cpus_and(mask, domain, cpu_online_map);
>>> if (cpus_empty(mask))
>>>
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> - if ((cfg->vector == vector) && cpus_equal(cfg->domain, domain))
>>> + if ((cfg->vector == vector) && cpus_equal(cfg->domain, mask))
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> if (cfg->vector != IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED)
>>>
>>> return -EBUSY;
>>>
>>> for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask)
>>>
>>> per_cpu(vector_irq, cpu)[vector] = irq;
>>>
>>> cfg->vector = vector;
>>>
>>> - cfg->domain = domain;
>>> + cfg->domain = mask;
>>>
>>> irq_status[irq] = IRQ_USED;
>>> if (IO_APIC_IRQ(irq))
>>>
>>> irq_vector[irq] = vector;
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home